Skip to main content

tv   Today in Washington  CSPAN  February 27, 2013 2:00am-6:00am EST

2:00 am
environment but a basic economic value we have complete lee disarrayed crops costing millions and millions of dollars to cause issues for our economy. how do you foresee, as you prioritize your risks, a big picture of effecting economies that are the major through points with the agricultural inspection? host: congressman reid ribble is
2:01 am
2:02 am
2:03 am
2:04 am
2:05 am
2:06 am
2:07 am
2:08 am
2:09 am
2:10 am
2:11 am
2:12 am
2:13 am
2:14 am
2:15 am
2:16 am
2:17 am
2:18 am
2:19 am
2:20 am
2:21 am
2:22 am
2:23 am
2:24 am
2:25 am
2:26 am
2:27 am
2:28 am
2:29 am
2:30 am
2:31 am
2:32 am
2:33 am
2:34 am
2:35 am
2:36 am
2:37 am
2:38 am
2:39 am
2:40 am
2:41 am
2:42 am
2:43 am
2:44 am
2:45 am
2:46 am
2:47 am
2:48 am
2:49 am
2:50 am
a republican in wisconsin and member of the budget committee. that begin with your budget committee experience. we heard from calller earlier. these are not cut under sequestration. you are just slowing the growth. could you explain the difference? guest: if you look at
2:51 am
defense spending, there is a reduction in the first year, and that it turns back up and the rate of growth continues at the same rate prior to sequestration, but starting with a lower starting point. there are reductions in the rate of growth. every year it is like an automatic right to refund that the programs. we do not go to zero. we start of the previous line and build from then. what this does is it retards that a bit and slows it down. host: you put together these slides. what will the budget look like it sequester happens? there seems to be very little bit of a difference between with or without sequester. guest: very modest. you're looking at spending going
2:52 am
back to years ago. this is not the catastrophe everyone says it is. one caveat to that. if you are the employee tickets furloughed, it this impacts your family, it is a real problem, and i recognize that concern. however, as that fiduciaries of the tax payer dollars, we have to recognize this country is over 16 trillion in debt, and we have to begin to address it and fix it. important for step. host: budget cut seen as a risk to grow in the u.s. economy. h guest: if you take it from that
2:53 am
perspective, it could seem like a slowing. there is a lot of reasons for the stagnant growth. there are a lot of things that need to be fixed. until we can get our congress and the president of the united states to work together and resolve of friction point, we will continue to have slow growth. if you look at the slide that you had up, it shows the sequestered as it relates to the overall economy. there is a tiny red line. that is the sequestered in relationship to the u.s. economy. >> during an economic recovery, is it bad timing to go ahead with a sequestered? guest: do not think it is. i think it is probably be appropriate time. instead of a husband and wife sitting at the dining room table
2:54 am
deciding whether there will buy a new car this year. the white says we really cannot afford to buy a new car. the husband says we have to buy this car because someone at general motors will lose their jobs if we do not. if we continue to lose -- use the logic that we restrained government at all because you will lose jobs if you do not, then why don't we have everyone send in all their money. host: you do not believe then that sequestration is a bad thing, and should it be reversed? if it goes through, should they try to undo it? guest: no, they should not. i put a bill in the hopper loss like that would allow transfer of our hunt ended ahead of spirit above where sequestration and went wrong is the cuts go across every single line item in
2:55 am
every agency budget. there is no availability for the secretary of aquaculture to prioritize. my bill basically allows each agency head to watch the pipeline -- the top line # establish and watch the funds in the way that is most appropriate. they know where the waste is and what are lower and higher priorities and the ways to manage their agencies effectively. i put it in the hopper last night. we attend code as sponsors ride out of the bat. it will get some attention. host: someone on twitter wrote when my boss tells me to cut, it's a reduction year over year to spending. not a decrease from what i requested for in the budget. caller: i hope sequester goes
2:56 am
through, because i cannot see them cutting the budget in any way, shape, or form. from what i understand, there will be an increase. it is going up $15 billion in spending for the entire year. i would like to know why there has not been a budget in four years. what is wrong with harry reid that he could not get along with a house and set up a budget for them so you could go to congress and have a budget? i cannot believe after four years there has not been one. guest: it is really surprising. congressman jim cooper wrote a piece of legislation, no budget, no pay. it required the congress to pass a budget resolution. the set and house agreed on it and did the appropriation bills on time. it the senate did not do that, they would have to give up their pay until the work got done it. -- if the that it did not do
2:57 am
that, they would have to give up their pay until the work got done. i was a sponsor of that bill. within minutes of having that legislation passed, harry reid came to the podium and said this year the senate will pass a budget. it is a critical step forward. at this point we will be able to see what a separate report -- priorities are, and hopefully we will be able to pull those documents together and have this country work on a budget for work, work with inside the budget framework so we can control the rampant growth of government. >host: an individual on twitter tes, why does savings pay less than inflation rate? guest: historically interest rates on federal debt have run between 4.5-5.5%.
2:58 am
today it is 1.2%, 1.25%. if interest rates would move back up to historical levels, the cost of interest to the u.s. treasury would go over $800 billion. it would be a catastrophe. budget planryan's calls for closing loopholes. now the republicans are against closing loopholes. guest: we are not against closing loopholes. our budget this year will do the exact same thing. we will close loopholes and take the savings and reduce tax rates for every single business in the country. what the president wants to do is continue to pick winners and losers that is a non-starter for us. we believe we need national, total, and complete tax reform, and that is what we will be
2:59 am
working on. host: the shell on twitter, your bill sounds like common sense. -- michelle on twitter, your build sound like common sense. guest: right now there is the blame game. republicans in the house blaming democrats and the president. it is this blame game that drive the american people crazy. you want to know whose fault this is? it is my fault. i voted for this. we voted for it. it is the president's fault, because he signed it. we all should embrace this to get our fiscal house in order. i think it is common sense, and i think that is what the american people want and expect from our leaders. here is why republicans might oppose it. it gives the administration too much power. what happens if they picked off
3:00 am
a republican district and try to cut more to make a political statement? they are fearful of that. my response is that it's ok. if they do it, it is visible because it was their choice. i think democrats would maybe oppose it, because then it would actually placed the blame on the president for the choices they make. host: a headline about gop drafting plans to give the president power. that is your bill. you are working with leadership on this? guest: leadership got yesterday. we're starting to move forward. the senate has a similar bill. there is one geared specifically toward giving the authority to defense. it is a good idea for the secretary of defense, it is a good idea for senator bill sack. -- villsack. host: democratic calller.
3:01 am
caller: i wanted to know why the politicians cannot take a five- year pay freeze and not get any more parks or whatever? just close all the loopholes. if politicians show up for work offhow for two hours to show their tie, they should get paid by the hour. guest: i will talk a little bit about pay. i came in as a freshman member in 2010. i am entering a third year. this is the third consecutive year. i am advocating removing the pension programs for members of congress. i have offered several different term-limit bills to restrict careers for members of congress. i believe we should put more requirements and members of
3:02 am
congress to do their job. that is why i co-sponsored on a the fall, no budget, no pay proposal. we're hoping we can get back this year so we can require congress to do the job the american people expect them to do. host: budget cuts would hit congress, but not members. why is that? guest: that is not true. our budgets get hit the same light. they have been frozen for three years. -- our budgets get hit the same way. there is an impact directly. i think is appropriate that we will say to federal agencies and discretionary portions of the budget that everyone else has to tighten up and we also have to do it. i agree with that. host: jocelyn, independent calller. caller: my question, first of
3:03 am
all, i would like to state my husband is a decorated naval veteran. he served our country for six years honorably. he has been working for five years in connecticut for the department of navy. we serve our country and do not take much money. we make about 90,000 per year. we're talking about a 20% pay decrease, about $900 per month. that is devastating. we're talking about a devastating. i have two small children. i want your pledge on national television that you and every other member of congress, but specifically you will take a 20% pay cut in your pay. my husband has also had a pay freeze for three years, has received no additional money for three years, even though health care has gone up. i want you as the secretary of
3:04 am
defense has pledged, that you will take a 20% pay cut, as will every member of congress, including the president, before you hit an hon. veteran who is disabled, who served his country for less than 100,000 per year and has a family to feed. guest: thank your husband for his service and think you to your children and you for the sacrifices you have made. this is where the rubber hits the road in this discussion. that is why i mentioned it earlier. it is a problem if you are one of the families that will be hit with a sequester. this is one of the reasons why my legislation this morning is so critical. it would give the secretary of defense, rather than this every single line item in the budget has to be cut by roughly 7.3%, it would give the secretary of defense the ability to manage it and say there are lower priority
3:05 am
problems in defense. we will not spend it here. instead we will preserve wages there. the sequestered itself and how it was done is not how you would manage anything. regarding members of congress, i cannot make a pledge for anything, because the constitution does not allow us to change our pay. i can only vote to change the next congress pay. i hear exactly what you say. i have the very same concerns that you have. i am trying to get the fix in place so it does not have to happen. thank you for your families service. -- famiy's service. host: you say you have 10 echoed the sponsors' right off the bat. you need a lot more than that. -- 10 co-sponsors right off the
3:06 am
bat. guest: there are couple of things that have to change. we can let the sequestered go through and immediately followed with a continuing resolution. this is the methodology we fund the government with. a continuing resolution is what we do by march 27. we can move that up to next week. we can do it this week, prior to sequestration taking place, which would be my preference. the uncertainty would disappear. host: what have you heard about this bill? guest: i have not heard anything. i will talk with the speaker immediately after this. we have our regular conference meeting where i will presented to the conference. there have been a lot of conversations and different
3:07 am
ideas. like i said, there is pushed back for republicans and democrats. if something is common sense as this, every single american gets it. i am hoping common sense will prevail. host: to win next in maryland. -- joann next in maryland. caller: this is something i think that is really important. sir, i find you disingenuous. republicans are willing to sacrifice programs like head start, meals on wheels, a number of poverty programs, tax breaks for the rich. that is what it really comes down to. as far as people losing their jobs, a federal employes are people, too. they have families and have to feed their children. secondly, there is a lot of
3:08 am
contractors. those contractors are often at small businesses, very small businesses. they are going to be cut. when they lose their federal contracts, they will not be able to feed their children either. guest: think you for your comments. i apologize for you finding week disingenuous. -- thank you. these cuts will roll back federal spending to a point just three years ago. in fact, it could make the argument we were underfunding, food stamps for example. food stamps jumped from 53 billion to 76 billion, even though simultaneously unemployment went from 10.1 percent down to 7.7%. food stamps and these programs for the needy, the truly needy continue to rise.
3:09 am
i am not opposed to having these types of social safety net available for the truly poor. we have to be careful of those making sure the truly poor are protected and do not get squeezed out by other priorities in the country that -- that might be less important. what we're trying to do is make sure the financial resources available to the people that have a need is actually there and those people who are able to support and sustain themselves do not get the benefit any longer. host: savannah, georgia. republican calller. caller: i do not understand why obama who says i inherited this debt and this debt, but he has doubled the debt from 7000 to 14,000 by redoing the oval office. that office has been that way for 40-50 years, and he goes to
3:10 am
change everything in it. i am a military spouse. my husband is deployed. you are talking about cutting the military? our men, our husbands, wives are over there fighting for our freedoms, and the government is treating them like they do not even matter. you are just another person we pay. and every other country is building over -- building up their military. guest: think you for your comments, and thank you for your family service. regarding your husband service, his pay is protected. service, hisnd's pay is protected. right now we are spending six times more than the next closest nation on defense.
3:11 am
at some point there has to be a slowing down of how we're spending money to defend the country. we cannot sustain this. this is particularly true in the light of the fact of the ever- growing social safety net for the senior programs, primarily medicare and social security. 10,000 americans every single day are entering those programs. 10,000 every single day. that is scheduled to go on for more than a decade. as the baby boom generation goes through, that amount of money will begin to compress what we can do on the discretionary side. just in the past two years, discretionary spending in this country, when i first came it was 41.5%, today just over 38% because the other programs have continued to grow. they are squeezing out essential programs that we all value and feel that are important. this is why the american people,
3:12 am
along with members of congress, have to begin the long, a typical conversation about how do we protect our seniors, children, and grandchildren? host: 80 billion is a nice cut, but how will we get to 1.2 trillion? guest: 1.2 trillion comes from the decade-long cut of sequestration. it is a significant reduction in the rate of growth. i would like for you to look back at some of the slides i brought. when you look at this, it you can see federal spending with and without the sequester. the gap between the lines is the cumulative amount of 1.2 trillion dollars. some of that savings coming from infrastructure. -- coming from interest.
3:13 am
still a modest reduction. government spending continues to grow each and every year. for our friends and family serving diligently and our military and country bravely, i want you to know we are concerned about that, and we are aware of it, but we have to measure this with all of our priorities as well. host: democratic calller in wisconsin. caller: good morning. youmedicare, why can't instead of raising the age, let people buy in at 55, and then go back to when hundred approximately when they are 55 and have more money into medicare, and it would help the small businesses that are insuring the older people?
3:14 am
guest: that is a great idea. thank you for calling from wisconsin. i hope it is not snowing there today. those are the types of ideas we need to get on the table and start talking about. we recognize the medicare program will continue to grow based sheer demographics of the country aging. there are fewer pleasers -- fewer workers replacing those that are retiring. ideas like yours should have a hearing and voice in the halls of congress, and i really appreciate you coming up with suggestions like these, because these are the types of debates that have to happen. thank you for waiting in this morning. host: ohio on the line for republicans. philip. >caller: my question is if the sequestered is only a decrease in the increase of the budget, how can we have of you were calling to say her husband will
3:15 am
have a 20% decrease in the wages because of the sequestered? how could the president go out and talk about all of the jobs that will be lost because of the sequestered? there is no difference. we are operating the same today as tomorrow, except the increase will be less. am i wrong in my perception of what is going on? guest: you are about 90 percent correct. in the first year, particularly on the defense side, and this was the point of the call earlier with a husband in the navy, there is an actual reduction on the defense side. it goes down for the first year. there will be some feeling there. you cannot make any type of decision or cuts in this country without affecting somebody. in the past four years there has been an additional cut 130,000 new federal anopheles at haskell in years. callously retarded that, it will have an impact.
3:16 am
this is the difficulty we have tried to get control of responding all of because every single time you restrict spending, you will affect the real, living breathing american citizen and their family. these are difficult choices that have to be made. te are responding to pas promises, and we have to begin to find a valid point. it is not about protecting taxes for the rich. january 1, and i voted for it, i voted to allow some of those tax increases to go through. i voted to put the payroll tax back in place. we will have to have some revenue increases, because the gap is too large. i do not believe this is the doomsday that is being presented by the president or prime some of my colleagues in the congress. -- or by some of my colleagues in this congress. if we look historically, the
3:17 am
last decade, those taxes yielded roughly 16.9% revenue against gdp. spending has historically been around 19.5% of gdp. still a gap there. deficit spending without regard to that. the gap is too large. if we could pull spending back to the historical levels of 19.6% of the nation's gdp, i would be more than willing to bring revenue up to that. host: rep reid ribble, what cuts to republicans want to make to make -- do republicans want to make to entitlements? guest: i have done some town halls and wisconsin. my constituents and wisconsin
3:18 am
centered around three basic things. we should take a look of the cap. right now they pay taxes on roughly the first $110,000 of income. we could raise that 200,000 or 300,000 to pull in additional revenue. that would be one option. several people favored that. some people said why don't we raise the age? we are being unfair to the grandparents who came in at age 65 but died 68. if we were to age adjusted for them, they should have started collecting at age 59 based on current age levels. we might have to increase the age by a year. why can't we means test it? this was really a social safety net for the poor. i think all of these ideas have
3:19 am
merit, and real reform might include elements of all of those. host: joe, independent calller. go on tho ahead. caller: this sequestration is already affecting my friend in the army. he was supposed to go to afghanistan in august, and now they stopped because they cannot afford to send them to different locations. i am kind of afraid if the sequestration and ends tomorrow, or even a month from now, my son will not get the training he needs to go. i went to iraq and needed six
3:20 am
months of intense training to go for a year. host: how much training has your son had so far? caller: a year of training, but you have to have specific training to go to afghanistan. you have to learn that some of the language. you have to learn some of the equipment of the vehicles. you need to learn a lot of things. guest: thanks for your question and concern, and thank you for your families service. here is the reality on afghanistan. some of this might be related to the sequestered, but it is more likely related to the fact that the war in afghanistan is starting to wind down. greens are starting to reduce manpower, and we will continue to see a reduction in force over
3:21 am
there. deployments will be shorter. -- marines are starting to reduce manpower. that is something i support. i think we should get out of afghanistan and let the country manage its own civilian population on its own and provide whatever assistance we need from an educational standpoint to help the economy. that would be the type of policy going forward, and i think that is what will happen. your son could be caught up in a combination of thing. one is the reduction of force in afghanistan, and what the defense department will do it sequester takes place. things are on hold. i put a bill in last night that would provide flexibility for the secretary of defense. rather than having the cuts go across every single line item, they would be able to prioritize how they spend the money, which may choose to put more money into training and remove money
3:22 am
from some other place within the department. thank you for your call. >> the white house put out a state-by-state breakdown of sequester and how it will impact different areas of the country. times- "the richminond dispatch." "the hartford curourant." what do you make of this strategy? guest: i think it is the political strategy, and working. the present has a very loud a bully pulpit. what the president has not talked about is what will happen if interest rates go to
3:23 am
4%. we pay 260 billion in interest. we're looking at a balanced budget that is in an eight- tenure windrow out there. we will continue to add debt. we have to recognize and be honest with the american people that these are things we cannot afford. right now the government, the federal government is consuming almost 25 percent of the nation's full productive output. if we continue spending the way we are with career rates of growth in the economy, it will not be long before taking a third of the nation's economy. we have to control it to protect our children. we have to get our arms around this. it will be painful. we're going to feel it. wisconsin is one to feel it. every single american will feel it. the counter to that is what they are want to feel later if there
3:24 am
was an economic collapse would be truly calamitous in this country. host: 8.5 million in funding for primary and secondary education. 3000 civilian at department of defense employees furloughed. 661,000 cuts in funding for job search agencies. have you heard from constituencies? guest: in part, but i am likely to hear the calls i have heard today, americans do not believe the hyperbole. this is how politicians are. the media plays into it. they use words like devastating and take an ax and all these things and they make it much worse than what it actually will be. if in fact we could get transfer authority to the agencies so they could pick and choose, how can you root out waste this way? if every agency knows where the
3:25 am
waste is in their department, it will allow them to get rid of the waste rather than get rid of critical programs. host: we use impact here on c- span. span. reid
3:26 am
3:27 am
3:28 am
3:29 am
3:30 am
3:31 am
3:32 am
3:33 am
3:34 am
3:35 am
3:36 am
3:37 am
3:38 am
3:39 am
3:40 am
3:41 am
3:42 am
3:43 am
3:44 am
3:45 am
3:46 am
3:47 am
3:48 am
3:49 am
3:50 am
3:51 am
3:52 am
3:53 am
3:54 am
3:55 am
3:56 am
3:57 am
3:58 am
3:59 am
4:00 am
4:01 am
4:02 am
4:03 am
4:04 am
4:05 am
4:06 am
4:07 am
4:08 am
4:09 am
4:10 am
4:11 am
4:12 am
4:13 am
4:14 am
4:15 am
4:16 am
4:17 am
4:18 am
4:19 am
4:20 am
4:21 am
4:22 am
4:23 am
4:24 am
4:25 am
4:26 am
4:27 am
4:28 am
4:29 am
4:30 am
4:31 am
4:32 am
4:33 am
4:34 am
4:35 am
4:36 am
4:37 am
4:38 am
4:39 am
4:40 am
4:41 am
4:42 am
4:43 am
4:44 am
4:45 am
4:46 am
4:47 am
4:48 am
4:49 am
4:50 am
4:51 am
4:52 am
4:53 am
4:54 am
4:55 am
4:56 am
4:57 am
4:58 am
4:59 am
5:00 am
5:01 am
5:02 am
5:03 am
5:04 am
5:05 am
5:06 am
5:07 am
5:08 am
5:09 am
5:10 am
5:11 am
5:12 am
5:13 am
5:14 am
5:15 am
5:16 am
5:17 am
5:18 am
5:19 am
5:20 am
5:21 am
5:22 am
5:23 am
5:24 am
5:25 am
5:26 am
5:27 am
5:28 am
5:29 am
5:30 am
5:31 am
5:32 am
5:33 am
5:34 am
5:35 am
5:36 am
5:37 am
5:38 am
5:39 am
5:40 am
5:41 am
5:42 am
5:43 am
5:44 am
5:45 am
5:46 am
5:47 am
5:48 am
5:49 am
5:50 am
5:51 am
5:52 am
5:53 am
5:54 am
5:55 am
5:56 am
5:57 am
5:58 am
5:59 am


disc Borrow a DVD of this show
info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on